“I. Am. The. Mom.”

This title and post is re-printed in full, with permission from the author Christy Duffy. It’s all about parental rights. Parental rights that are slowly being usurped all over the country. I’m not going to add to what the author has already written. I will simply say, I totally agree with her.

I would also like you all to know, that there is no existing law that requires a five-minute chat with a health care professional…When you comment, remember- this isn’t just talking about sex and drugs etc…Rather, it’s about parental rights and control over who we allow our children to talk to, and who talks to them. It’s a parent’s decision, not a State’s decision!

What are your thoughts on this?

I. Am. The. Mom.

Let’s get one thing straight:no doctor or nurse is going to sequester my children in an exam room and talk to them privately. Period. This public service announcement made necessary because of this sign, posted at the check-in counter of my doctor’s office:

I was there last week for an appointment for Amy. She hurt her foot, which makes dancing difficult, so we had to get that checked out. Amy is 17; I asked if this policy was in effect and if so, how could I opt out. The receptionist told me it’s a new law and there is no opting out. Working to keep my cool, I said, “I’m sure there is.” She said, “No, there isn’t.” At which point I asked if I needed to leave and go to the urgent care center because I was not submitting my daughter to such a conversation.

That did not go over wellThe receptionist closed the window. Almost immediately, the office manager turned the corner and said, “Mrs. Duffy, may I speak with you?”

She said there was a new policy that would allow a child to access his/her medical records online and the child would be allowed to block a parent from viewing the website. The nurse would also inform my children that the doctor’s office is a safe place for them to receive information about STDs, HIV and birth control. That is what the nurse would be chatting about with my children without any pesky parental oversight.

I kindly informed her that no one would be talking with my children privately, and I needed to know how to opt out of this policy before bringing Amy back for her physical next month. (Yay for physicals! Amy is so excited.)

By this time, the doctor was ready to see Amy so I had to cut the conversation short because I was not letting my girl out of my eyesight or earshot. Not when it was clear that these people were angling to undermine my parental authority.

Does that sound a bit dramatic to you? It shouldn’t. Because that is exactly what they are trying to do.

Make sure this is crystal clear: what they want to do is talk to your child about sex and drugs (maybe rock and roll – who knows?) without your input. Is it really such a stretch to imagine that a doctor who does not value abstinence before marriage would encourage your daughters – as young as 12! – to receive birth control? Is it really such a stretch to imagine a nurse telling a young boy – because a 12 year old boy is a BOY – that she will give him condoms so he can be “safe”? Is this what you want told to your children without the ability to filter the info through your world view?

Should a doctor ever ask to speak to a child without a parent present? If he/she suspects abuse then of course. But short of evidence of abuse, a doctor should not need to speak to a child alone.

I am the Mom. I will pick who can talk to my kids about sex and drugs. And rock-n-roll for that matter.

Regardless what health care provider you choose, please know that no one has the right to remove you from your child’s exam room. Perhaps if more of us stood up for our rights as parents, this ludicrous undermining of parental authority might end.

______________________

The sign is now down – click here to read what a rep at the privacy department told me.

Right, there is no law. So, if there is no law, it’s this particular privately owned health care provider who posted a sign that was a lie. Again, shame on the healthcare provider if that’s the case.

Whatever the laws are in any given state, though, every child should have the *option* to speak to a nurse or doctor in private if the child – the patient – so chooses. What’s more important than parental rights are the rights of the actual child.

That’s a nice bumper sticker Jackson, but at what age? Do I want my 7 year old being advised out of my presence? My 10 year old? 12? Don’t forget, as a parent I am legally responsible for the health and well-being of my minor children.

First, if this WAS a law, my first reaction is just leave the office. I feel bad for the receptionist that has to deal with angry parents over this through no fault of their own. If its a law, their hands are tied no matter how messed up it is, they could have a lawsuit if they do not follow it.

Second, if there is in fact NO law, they (the office) need to be reported for misrepresentation, a whole other issue to deal with.

Third, I see the sense in the policy for a 15, 16, or 17 year old. They obviously will not say or admit certain things in front of their parents. I am married in my thirties and will not talk about these things in front of my mother either to this day.
I think even as Christians, being young comes with the same challenges and temptations and sometimes, yes, even with a Christian upbringing our kids give in to sexual behavior and the parents usually do not know about it. Even though I myself was not sexually active at that age, I would of died before I told my parents or admitted it even if they asked me straight out!
This girl was 17 years old. She should not have mommy there every minute.

My other thing is, age 12 is by far WAY to young. I know kids are starting earlier in these behaviors, but 12, 13, even in some cases 14 they are still children and a parent should be present.

I do see the sense. I think no matter how hard we try, and no matter what type of faith we come from and teach our children we cannot control them. We can guide them and teach them, but there comes a point when every child will have decisions to make on their own.
Part of me is also torn when parents get blamed for their Childrens mistakes. Children will eventually have to learn and lead without being clutched to their parents hand.

Just one after thought. There are other issues that youth deal with, such as depression, suicide, abuse at home or at school that I am sure a nurse would want to ask when a parent is there not there. Even if its not the parent doing the abuse.
I had a close friend break down in the doctors office when the nurse asked her something. She admitted to having an eating disorder that she hid from her parents. Her parents were in any way shape, or form bad parents. She was just determined to hide it from them.

At that age, the last thing you want to do is open up to your parents most of the time.

E,
Yeah, I can certainly understand that. It’s the whole “law” thing that got me. Having the option to talk privately is good. But, having a “law”… where the parent isn’t given a choice?…not so good. (In my opinion).

It’s interesting- because I have allowed my under-aged children to talk to their providers on their own. I’ve known our providers since the kids were really little and I trust them. So, for me- it wasn’t a big deal and they were at least 15-17 yrs old at the time. I would also like to add that our providers ALWAYS asked me permission. I was never told, I was always asked “May we speak to your child for a moment?” The power of giving a yes or no response was still with me as the parent. I think the thing that really bothers me about this incident, is that it was posted as a law, and the mom was told there is no opt out. Obviously she did opt out anyway, and later realized there is no law…

Yes. I am glad she followed up with the provider. They were misleading and that is very very wrong.

I do have to say that, from a different perspective, I think in certain cases this type of law where the parent is not given a choice, while I am sick of the government trying to implement insane laws, I do see the need for it sometimes.
When I was young, I could totally see my mother saying no to this and never leaving my side. That made me think, what if I had an issue, was depressed? Or was being abused whether is was by a parent or someone else?
I was never that close to my mom and would not of told her, so in that case, I get a law like this.

But, then things start to get tricky when other laws get enacted on top of other laws, and before you know it, whoop, parental rights are all gone.

If no new “Michigan Medical Records access laws” have been put in place, as the sign posted by the health care provider says have been put in place, then one has to wonder about the honesty of that provider, and about the morals that would permit the provider to lie so blatantly.

Where is outrage warranted against anybody other than this particular healthcare provider for misrepresenting its own policy as a law? This woman is fully within her rights to take her daughter to a different provider who does not use such a policy, as Troy Taxpayer said, so the state has nothing to do with this. This story has nothing to do with parental rights being “usurped” because parents have every right to take their child to a provider of their choosing with policies that fit with what that parent wants.

“Regardless what health care provider you choose, please know that no one has the right to remove you from your child’s exam room. Perhaps if more of us stood up for our rights as parents, this ludicrous undermining of parental authority might end.”

But nobody is removing her from her child’s exam room, and nobody is undermining her parental authority. The practitioner in this case misrepresented the law, that’s it. The only time a parent can be taken out of the equation is if the child 12 years old or older opts to see their doctor privately, as explained below by ReepDaggle.

To answer your question in reply to my comment above, 12 years old seems to me, and evidently to the law, to be a reasonable age to give a child the right to choose when to see their doctor privately. It’s practical as well, as at that age many of the concerns that a child faces but doesn’t want to discuss with a parent start to emerge. Denying a child that right would do far more harm than good and allow overbearing parents to jeopardize their child’s health by denying them private access to their doctor, something that we adults take for granted.

Make sure this is crystal clear: what they want to do is talk to your child about sex and drugs (maybe rock and roll – who knows?) without your input. Is it really such a stretch to imagine that a doctor who does not value abstinence before marriage would encourage your daughters – as young as 12! – to receive birth control? Is it really such a stretch to imagine a nurse telling a young boy – because a 12 year old boy is a BOY – that she will give him condoms so he can be “safe”? Is this what you want told to your children without the ability to filter the info through your world view?

Wow… paranoid much?

She states that her daughter was there for a foot injury (which *I* would have brought straight to an orthopedist, not a GP). So… what does a foot injury have to do with talking about sex and birth control??

And what this mother needs to understand is that her daughter is 17, not 7. In a year’s time, if not this year, she will be graduating high school and perhaps going off to college, living in a dorm, and meeting a lot of new people. Her own life view is going to change… a LOT! I know mine did, and quite a bit between my own 17 and now 39 years. Is this mother going to try to stand between her daughter and what life is going to hand her indefinitely? By the time I was 17, and even before that age, I was quite capable of going into the doctor’s office without Mommy there holding my hand. I could describe my symptoms without anyone’s help.

This woman needs to get a grip, or else her daughter will be 30 and this woman will still be up in her business. I’m glad my parents were never this possessive.

I haven’t had such a policy as that in 10 years, thankfully. My employer opts for the PPO/EPO model.

It was very interesting the first time I had to go see a specialist (follow-up visit with a neurologist who had treated me at St’ Peter’s). The receptionist at his practice tried to give me static when I told her that, FYI I do not need a referral, and that this MD was listed in my policy as a provider. She backed down when I asked her if she wanted me to bring in a copy of my policy to prove it to her.

The linked follow up was more useful than the first story. The information is clarified. The law DOES require kids 12-17 have access to the services that they would be informed of in that session with the nurse. And it’s important that the kids have that access. As much as parents whine and gnash their teeth with the nonsense argument that they’re losing their parental rights, the fact is that many parents are NOT equipped to answer many of the questions that the kids might have, and a doctor’s office is an ideal place to get the medically accurate answers. It’s also not a usurpation of parental rights to recognize that many kids are simply not comfortable discussing those issues with their parents, but would be with their doctor.

The provider clearly erred in suggesting that the law mandated that initial session without parents present, which it most certainly did not, and all criticism levelled at them for that is well justified. The better way would be for the parents to be part of that session because, just as the kids need private access to the doctor, the parent needs to know the kid has that access. There should be no secrets about that part of it. And even if the parent makes it clear in that session that they disagree and tries to forbid the child from seeing the doctor alone, the kid will at least have heard that the law exists and is on their side. If the parent decides to change providers, so be it. The kid will already know that the rights granted under that law will follow them to the new provider. And it’s equially important that the parent hear that too.

It’s a good law with a sound basis, handled horrendously by this provider, and all the screaming from parents that they’re losing their authority is just a lot of paranoid venting.

Good post Reep, but it seems to be a curious state of the law if a parent can be jailed for not taking care of their child’s health and well being, while at the same time be barred from access to medical information about their health an well being. And I am not talking about sex.

The idea that a 12 year old can have an intelligent, informed conversation with a health care provider and make good decisions based on those discussions is, well, laughable. There is no way that the input of the provider is not going to have a profound influence on the child solely due to the disparate power levels. So in essence the provider acts in loco parentis, just without the responsibility.

‘The idea that a 12 year old can have an intelligent, informed conversation with a health care provider and make good decisions based on those discussions is, well, laughable. There is no way that the input of the provider is not going to have a profound influence on the child solely due to the disparate power levels.’
____________________________________________________________________________________

Is it really laughable? I’d love to hear a child psychologist weigh in on this one.

So far as a provider having a profound influence, do they not have the same influence on most adults? Age is one defining aspect of power, but so is expertise.

elmer,
My knowledge of the law is limited to this thread. I have to assume there are reasonable loopholes that not only allow, but require the doctor share certain information with the parents, in large part for the reason you allude to. I highly doubt that a law that allows private access for a teen for consultative purposes includes the right to consent, where legally required, to more advanced medical needs like surgery, or to legal actions. I have to trust the doctors to know when the line is crossed for mandatory parental notification, and the parents should take some comfort in that, when they’re not otherwise busy working themselves into a paranoid tizzy.

elmer – It seems awfully paranoid to think a parent would be prosecuted for neglect because they took their child to the doctor and the child decided they wanted to discuss things privately with that doctor. In this day and age where you have parents who are not prosecuted for refusing to even take their children to the doctor and refusing to vaccinate them, it’s hardly a realistic concern that you are posing. If a teenager is doing drugs or having sex, that is not something that a parent can be held criminally liable for unless they are the ones enabling those activities.

This issue is much more about what Jango pointed out in his comment below. It’s about parents’ ability to exercise control over their children that by all measures has the potential to be detrimental to a child’s well being in order to satisfy that parent’s adherence to dogmatic principles. Again, nobody has mandated that a child must speak to a provider alone, but the right of the child to have that access must trump the right of a parent to deny access.

Fair enough, but having had three of my own go through those ages I am skeptical that they were capable of making informed decisions on issues with long term consequences, that’s all. Again, I am NOT talking about sex, but health issues generally. And TT, I agree that adults are influenced, perhaps unduly so, by medical professionals. Given that is it not likely the level of influence is increased greatly if it is a child being spoken to?

I’d venture a guess that the level of influence may unfortunately even be less so when it comes to a child or teenager, who have a tendency to think themselves invincible and do not yet have the experience or knowledge to truly appreciate the advice of a medical expert.

Many 15-18 year olds aren’t able to talk about certain things with their parents or in front of them. I wish when I was that age I had had the chance to talk to a professional by myself because then maybe I wouldn’t have some of the issues I have today or I might have been able to be diagnosed with bipolar sooner which the symptoms started when I was 16. Maybe it is about time put some trust in your 16 or 17 year old to ask questions from a nurse. Would you want your child to be informed about a situation or not informed. Yes this is your baby but your baby is a young adult now and if you raised him/her with values and morals then you have nothing to worry about. It could also be the case that this alone time with the nurse could be about a friend who wants to commit suicide or is abused or doing drugs or cutting themselves. If I had a child that age I would be around that he or she spoke up for their friend. Not everything is about sex drugs and rock in roll!

I appreciate your concerns, kat, but what assurance do you, or any parent, have that “the nurse” is going to respond constructively to your child? Do you know the nurse, or have any idea how she/he fells about any of a wide range of issues that might contradict all those values and morals you’ve spent years trying to establish?

Would you leave an opportunity to share advice with your child, about whatever they choose to share, with ANY stranger? Who is going to share the responsibility with you, the partent, if whatever advice given, by this virtual stranger, is misunderstood, is just plain bad advice or creates unexpected problems?

What seems really laughable Troy Taxpayer is the assinine presumption that, “that a 12 year old can decypher an intelligent, informed conversation with a health care provider and understand it well enough to make a good decisions based on those discussions.”

It would be interesting to hear what, “a child psychologist” has to say about consistency of maturity in 12 year olds. A High School teacher might be a credible source for a second opinion. 12 year olds, accused of attempted murder, are a really rare exception to the rule, and not likely a good representative for a comparison

Ah, so glad you chimed in Albert. Where would we be without your profound wisdom and respectful criticism of others opinion.

My ‘Assinine’(sp) question of whether or not a 12 year old was capable of holding a conversation with an adult is just that. A question. And quite frankly, in my opinion, based on my personal experience (and a whole lot of time with junior high teachers), there are plenty of 12 year olds at all areas of the social and economic spectrum that would do well to have some private and frank conversations with their health care providers absent of their parents. However, not being an expert, I asked whether someone who might be such was willing to chime in. I guess I got you.

Since my opinion is so ‘assinine’ (sp), what is your expertise in this particular area Albert, since mine is apparently so ‘laughable’.

Also, you are quoting some verbal discussion with your use of full quotes. Who are you quoting. It doesn’t appear to be anyone on this blog.

Albet J – you appreciate my concerns? I may not have children of my own but i do have nieces and nephews. Nobody is assured 100 percent that the nurse or anybody else is going to respond constructively to your child. How many times have we heard in the news or read in the paper that a teacher has been arrested for inappropriately touching a child? Did we know his morals and values? What about the sex education classes in school? How does one know that the instructor is going to give the facts and not his/her opinions? The answer is we don’t. When i used the word NURSE i meant the nurse at the child’s doctor’s office. Usually this nurse is the same nurse for all visits. I wasn’t talking about a nurse at the ER or Urgent care as that nurse is always changing. Not once in my comment did i mention the word stranger. If my child had knowledge that a friend was being bullied or thinking about committing suicide or being abused i would want him/her to tell anybody they felt that HE/SHE could trust whether it be someone i trust or not. The main issue is getting this child the help he/she needs before it is too late. As health care providers and educators we are mandated to report these issues to the appropriate people. The main point is that nobody knows 100 percent what another person’s value or morals are or if when presented with a question from a child will answer the question constructively.

Kat, I believe most people probably read “nurse” the same way you did, as the one(s) at the primary physician’s office, a person the parent likely already knows personally, or at the very least is known and trusted by the doctor with whom the parent has entrusted the care of his/her child. Neither the original column, nor any previous comment in the dialogue it has prompted, has suggested that the nurse with whom the child would be talking would be a complete stranger.

There can be legitimate discussion about the wisdom of allowing children to talk to their doctors and nurses in confidence about medical issues, but it does serious harm to the presumed validity of an argument opposing such a practice to create an artificial bogeyman.

Step back for a second kat, I’m not questioning the need you are concerned about being address by those needing assistance or information. The question is where that support comes from.

Without question, the primary and most direct source would be PARENTS, with some presumption they would be “good” parents, parents that have the child’s best interests at heart. When such parents are not available, then the need falls elsewhere. It could be Teachers, Nurses, Parents of friends, Clergy or other family members including siblings, Aunts or Uncles. In really difficult situations it might wind up being Police Officers or even Correction Officers. A large majority of these external sources are, in reality STRANGERS, who have limited, if ANY, knowledge about the individual or situation

The problem is every situation is unique, and creating laws with imaginary “cookie cutter” solutions is NOT going to alter the hard and fast FACT that parents are ultimately responsible and CANNOT be excluded, or bypassed, based on general theories and presumptions. We currently have laws and regulations designed to accommodate extreme circumstances, and EXCLUDING parents, on a general basis, seems like a really BAD idea.

Albert – Considering your frequent accusations of “false outrage” against people who you think have no right being outraged at certain things, this particular knee-jerk reaction to lob insults and disparage other commenters is startlingly hypocritical, even for you. Troy Taxpayer’s question is asinine? Really? A question that gets to the core of the subject of this blog post is ASININE? This blog post and the comments thus far had been relatively civil and constructive until you had to come along and throw down petty and condescending insults, but it goes to show there is no subject where you are above that.

No Albert I will not step back. I shared my opinion which you criticized. It seems like nobody’s opinion matters except for yours. Get a grip you are not the only person with an opinion. If you don’t have anything intelligent to say then don’t say anything

Reepdagle once again it seems like you didn’t read the whole post. Albert did bring up the word stranger in his assinine comment to me. What happened to never reading this blog again.

Kat, I’m going to have to quote Albert for a moment and ask that you step back for a second. I DID read your post, and every one before it. In full. My comment to you was completely supportive of your position. My use of “stranger” was a direct reference to Albert’s first use of it. My point, apparently less obvious than was intended, was to agree with YOU that the nurse most likely to spend time answering a kid’s questions would probably NOT be a stranger, as Albert seemed to suggest was not just likely, but inevitable.

I never stopped reading, – turns out she’s hard to quit – just participating. I’m back mostly because the selectively enforced rule of three posts, applicable to a few of us, fewer than we were told, BID, seems to not be in force at all. But I want to do my part for both Liz and myself by limiting my participation, and avoiding all direct conversation with Albert, because that’s when it always gets carried away. I’m content to read other people’s replies to him, including some very enjoyable offerings in this thread.

Perhaps I misunderstood, kat, but this question doesn’t seem to be about the viability, or wisdom, of seeking professional assistance to deal with, what could be a wide range of issues, it seemed to be about the wisdom of authorities EXCLUDING parents from the process.

When the assistance is sought collaboratively, with parental involvement, and “known” sources, the process is entirely a different matter than when dictated by a governmental/authority decree rejecting parental consent and involvement, WHERE THE POTENTIAL FOR DEALING WITH A TOTAL STRANGER IS FAR MORE LIKELY.

It’s not my opinion I would suggest you consider as much as broadening your perspective and consideration to recognize how different and intrusive the application may well become when governmental/authority sources are empowered to dictate absolute control and remove parental involvement from the process, as a general and policy practice.

There may well be circumstances where parental involvement is best removed from the equation, but these are exceptions for which there are existing procedures in place to deal with. Extending the process for handling serious exceptions to be that of the general application would place enormous strain, on an already overloaded system and seems like an unnecessary tragic mistake.

As for “expertise” Troy Taxpayer, I would suggest you seek guidance from a source with a lot more experience than I. You are welcome to consider, however, that suggesting your personal familiarity with “12 year olds”, however extensive it may be, is likely an inadequate and lacking pool on which to ascertain the maturity or comprehension standards for ALL young people.

Again, the inclusion of actual parents in the judgment and decision process would likely be an invaluable asset in the vast majority (but likely not all) situations. My conclusion is based on my understanding the question dealt with EXCLUDING, rather than supporting parental involvement in the decision process, which I submit is usually a bad idea, on many levels.

Suggesting, willfully casting aside parental authority and involvement in potentially significant matters, involving developing children seems to me an excessive, asinine, and extremely dangerous, recommendation that opens the door to far more potential trouble than benefit. Presuming that, in general, parents should be EXCLUDED from discussions and decisions on such life altering, important matters is, in my judgment counterproductive and far more likely to exacerbate, than relieve valid concerns.

TT: ‘Since my opinion is so ‘assinine’ (sp), what is your expertise in this particular area Albert, since mine is apparently so ‘laughable’.’
_____________________________________________________________________

Albert (paraphrased): I have none. I just like to argue.

TT: ‘Also, you are quoting some verbal discussion with your use of full quotes. Who are you quoting. It doesn’t appear to be anyone on this blog.’
_____________________________________________________________________

As is usually the case, Troy Taxpayer, your “summaries” reflect a lot more about your train of thought, than anything I would consider.

Your observation, and suggestion, that a 12 year old should be presumed able to comprehend, alone without parental guidance, discussions with medical professionals is actually more ridiculous than “asinine” describes, but the limits of my civil vocabulary was strained to find a more appropriate replacement. I would actually be surprised that medical professionals would accept the responsibility for conducting such a wide range of discussions, with 12 year olds without the involvement of, or specific permission from, their parents.

As always I appreciate your willingness to correct any and all grammatical errors I make, but might suggest you focus, just a little harder, on the substance of that which you criticize, as least as much as the presentation.

Not to belabor an already well explained point, kat, but this topic” deals with parents being EXCLUDED from such discussions as a matter of course (policy or even law), which would likely DRAMATICALLY increase the potential of the child dealing with someone other than a well known source, a STRANGER (which would also describe people you may be acquainted with, but know precious little about).

You may have extensive personal relationships with all the medical personnel you encounter, but others haven’t the foggiest clue as to what the Nurse, who might be checking their blood pressure, pulse or recent medical concerns thinks, believes or is in anyway competent to discuss with an impressionable 4th to 6th grader about matters that the parent considers their exclusive responsibility to impart on THEIR child.

Even though that Nurse, or other medical professional may be a wonderful person during these visits, very few, IF ANY, parents would have knowledge or details as to what that persons conclusions are regarding extremely personal and life affecting subjects. I thought I was clear in suggesting that such discussions, with medical professionals, including the parent(s) could be extremely beneficial (not only to the child, but the parent as well).

I understand I am not the only person with an opinion, but when alternative opinions are expressed that are (again forgive my limited vocabulary) asinine, and more importantly dangerous, it seems reasonable to challenge them. Of course, since I don’t know you, my challenge is directed at the substance of your observations, and not you personally.

Albert- I stated my opinion already. I don’t know why you are once again directing comments to me when I obviously ignored your last post. If you are wanting an argument from me you are not going to get one. I know when enough is enough and I am not going to play your silly games.

What this is all about is born-again Christians refusing to allow their children to have access to information about birth control.

Thant’s ok Liz. Don’t talk to them about birth control now, you can tell them how they’re going to hell for getting an abortion later.

I’ll say one thing though, at the born-again Christian college I attended (Houghton College), the wildest girls where always the pastor’s kids. They were always the first ones to drink, smoke pot, and have sex. I really miss my college days.

FYI, Liz, in the state of New York, which you love to disparage, the policy is just the opposite. My son recently “outgrew” seeing a pediatrician and had his first appointment for a routine physical at our “adult” primary care provider. After the doctor entered the exam room and introductions were made, I prepared to go wait outside, thinking my son would prefer privacy with the doctor. The doctor asked me to stay, as my son was still a few weeks shy of 18 years old, to preclude the possibility that any claim of mistreatment or abuse might occur.

You wrote- “FYI, Liz, in the state of New York, which you love to disparage…” I love NY State, born and raised here. Raising my family here. Love the mountains, lakes & seasons….However, NY being the highest taxed state in the nation, and the abortion capitol of the US…mehhh, not so much. I hate that part. Yep.

I would be outraged that the sign that was posted was a lie and would be looking for somebody in the state to put an end to it.
Having said that,we were lucky to have good doctors that could talk to kids and young adults. Remembering what it was like to be a kid and teenager with all kinds of questions about this and that I stayed with my son when it looked like he wanted me there and made myself scarce when I thought he could use a little privacy and maybe had a couple questions he’d rather not discuss in front of me.I think he appreciated it.My wife did the same thing.
It was pretty easy with him–maybe it’s harder with a daughter?
btw,I didn’t then badger him to tell me or ask the doctor what,if anything,was discussed-that would have kind of defeated the whole purpose.
The world is way more complicated for kids than it was 30-35 years ago when my son was a kid I think it might be even more important now to give kids a little privacy here and there.

Brian, the question is NOT whether private discussions between a medical professional and a child can be beneficial, the question is WHETHER it’s a parental responsibility to decide when, where and what about, these discussions are appropriate.

There are currently laws and regulations in place to deal with exceptions.

Whether, “The world is way more complicated for kids than it was 30-35 years ago”, or (some) parents are not as involved or competent in helping guide their children through the complications is a more perplexing question. The journey can be made a lot easier if it does receive assistance from, “the village”, but that doesn’t mean that parents are relieved of the responsibility of being the head/chief guide.

Brian, fortunately the law appears to be written in such a way so as to bypass those parents who feel they must micromanage every moment of their child’s upbringing, even on informational medical matters where their involvement is unwanted by the child, unnecessary for the transmission of accurate information, and where parental insistence on knowing every minute detail of what the child is doing would otherwise cause the child to either not seek the information at all or to seek it from a wholly unqualified person.

As I’ve said earlier, I have no doubt there are rules written in that mandate parental notification of these discussions when certain issues/needs arise.

The left seems to believe that the only role that parents have in their children’s health care is to pay for that health care. What a moronic position that is, given that, in the eyes of the law, children are children incapable of entering into legally binding contracts (such as for health care), children are children incapable of granting consent for sexual activity, and that children are children who are not permitted to drink alcohol, drive cars, vote, etc., etc..

Brian I agree with you a 100 percent that the world is more complicated for kids today than 30-35 years ago. Unfortunately some can’t get past the law part to see that maybe giving a son or daughter some privacy when at the doctor might be beneficial and not harmful.

It seems amazing how consistently some inevitably rivert to the most extreme exaggeration, to try and make a point. When such extreme examples are necessary, to explain a point, perhaps the actual problem is with the point trying to be made.

Exactly who is it, that decides which parents are, “those parents who feel they must micromanage every moment of their child’s upbringing, even on informational medical matters where their involvement is unwanted by the child, unnecessary for the transmission of accurate information, and where parental insistence on knowing every minute detail of what the child is doing would otherwise cause the child to either not seek the information at all or to seek it from a wholly unqualified person.”

As opposed to loving, caring, responsible parents who perform their parental responsibilities judiciously, have far more information about and experience with, a particular child and are TOTALLY responsible for how that child digests and processes the information being imparted and subsequently applies it.

The decision when, and about what, to involve a medical professional may well be beneficial for the child, however whether that discussion should be conducted in private, or including the parent is the exclusive responsibility of the parents, or in certain rare exceptions, a judge.

Authority arbitrarily designated without the requisite responsibility for consequences is foolish and dangerous.

Addendum to yesterday’s not yet published reply:
“It seems amazing how consistently some inevitably rivert to the most extreme exaggeration, to try and make a point.”

It requires a great deal of ignorance to conclude that micromanaging parents don’t exist, presumably based solely on the writer himself haven’t no personal familiarity with anyone who meets the definition.

And, having reached that ignorant conclusion, it requires a great deal of arrogance to dismiss the reference to such parents as “the most extreme exaggeration”.

Sadly, the writer of that statement is no stranger to either of those attributes, as he is all too often willing to demonstrate.

Of course, there’s the other possibility that the statement was meant as nothing more than an excuse for picking a fight, yet another behavior he demonstrates for us far too often.

Talk about “picking a fight”, Reepdaggle, you failed to answer the question. We’re not discussing “a Law”, we’re discussing whether a seemingly overbearing idea, “should be considered as a law”.

Forgive me for redundantly reminding that the issue is NOT whether such discussions with Medical professionals is recommended or beneficial, the question is whether parents should be LEGALLY PROHIBITED FROM PARTCIPATING in such discussion, that are MANDATED. I’m not sure what you’re missing, Reepdaggle, but if a service is MANDATED and parental participation is PROHIBITED, what responsibility, other than payment, is left to the parents?

So again back to the basic question, “Who decides what constitutes parental micromanagement”? Are you suggesting the Legislature, on either a Federal, State or Local level is in a reasonable, much less appropriate, position to dictate when parents have a say in decision making related to their children’s moral upbringing? Excluding parents, by law, from such decision making, likely takes parental responsibility back to the levels of ancient Sparta, where history suggests that government selected potential warriors at an early age, without parental agreement or consent.

As seems not unusual, Reepdaggle, you clearly haven’t thought the potential for such a dramatic reversal of parental responsibility, control and interaction with THEIR children thoroughly through, to consider all the potential ramifications of such a precedence, but find it necessary to comment anyway.

Have you considered, kat, specifically how to establish who is qualified to determine FOR EACH CHILD when informationm by (very likely in this respect) a stranger whose perceptions are (likely) unknown to the parents) as a general rule would be MANDATED?

I don’t believe ANYONE has suggested “overly involved micromanaging parents don’t exist. but I also haven’t heard how someone impowered to overrule such a parent would be determined? What is the standard? Currently courts are assigned to make controlling decisions, limited to very special circumstances involving specific probable cause, on a carefully considered case by case basis, rather than expanding such involvement to a general application of some new legal mandate, based on little more than a questionable “hunch”.

It seems the, “great deal of ignorance required” would be decidedly secondary to the great deal of arrogance necessary for someone to conclude they are, and should be, empowered to govern such decisions.

Sadly, suggesting a specific response, “was meant as nothing more than an excuse for picking a fight” is too easily mischaraterized to conseal what may more accurately be described as resisting an arrogant bully who has consistently shown a propenisty for believing he is ever so much smarter than everyone else, and therefore entitled to impose his conclusions on others.

“So again back to the basic question, “Who decides what constitutes parental micromanagement”?”

And for the second time, no one decides, because the answer is irrelevant. Such parents DO exist, but the law applies to ALL kids in the designated age range, regardless if their parents fall into that group or not.

Among other things, “picking a fight” involves relentlessly demanding an answer to an irrelevant question. You’ve twice now been given all the answer you need to that question. If it isn’t enough for you, that’s your problem, not mine.

I won’t waste time addressing the rest. As always, it’s chock full of insults, taunts and conclusions that have no basis in anything I actually said, so that any point you think you’re making gets buried beneath the self-serving hostility. I’ve already given your comment more attention than I said I was going to allow myself, and way more than it deserved.

Well Albert J, I wouldn’t say you’re picking a fight, I’d say you’re putting up a good fight, and you have Lawrence and all his shills on the run.
And anyone who wants to talk about “micromanaging” their kids, well it needs to be done until they fly the coupe.(When they leave home and were taught right from wrong).
Sad part is most of these LW shills can’t even manage their own lives as grown ups, without the help of the government.
Now we are bringing in thousands of illegals and their kids, most without parents, and you and I will pay the tab.
We need someone to step up and stop this insanity, or as I predict in 20-30 years the USA will be as lawless as the Middle East counties.
Sorry Liz for going a little off topic, but if you look close, it really is all connected….in the long run.